- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 10:11 PM #678856March 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM #677731
CA renter
Participant[quote=equalizer]This may have been posted elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating about pension spiking. TG has correctly stated that salaries and benefits of peace/corrections officers/fireman is tiny portion of budget, but it is wrong on principle (think Javert in Les Misérables) if there are massive budget problems and fair market value of comparable jobs, say nuclear workers or front line soldiers, is lower.
Not to say that most aren’t tremendously loyal servants like Glenn Allen, the 61 year old L.A. firefighter with 36 years on the job who tragically died putting out a fire last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/local/la-me-0219-firefighter-20110219
“1 Billion DROP Salary Scandal: L.A. Cops, Firefighters Allowed to Double-Dip Into City Funds, Collect Pensions 5 Years Early”
It would be great if everyone in comparable position could have a DROP program. Warning: watching the video may produce strong reactions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php%5B/quote%5D
Just want to point out that instead of focusing on the one doing the “double-dipping,” we should ask what the net cost/benefit is to the employer.
Employers like the DROP program because it costs the employer **LESS** than if they would have to hire a new person for the position. That’s because they do not have to make pension contributions for the retired/rehired person, whereas they would have to make these contributions for someone not in the DROP program.
Employers will often used a DROP program employee if there is a current or upcoming project in the works that requires the expertise of the retiring employee. Sometimes, they are actually in the process of eliminating a position, but need to finish some tasks or projects first, so would rather rehire someone temporarily (who is also very experienced and knowledgeable), so that they won’t have to incur the costs of hiring, and possibly re-training, a new person. They also save by not having to make the pension contributions.
Again, there is a lot of misinformation going around that is 100% based on envy. What we have to look at is the net cost/benefit to taxpayers, not what the employee is making, personally. BTW, there is a five-year max for this program, but most of the DROP employees I’ve known about (very few) only participate for a few months or maybe a year. Again, it’s usually done in order to complete a particular project or task. It’s not done as a way to make extra money.
March 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM #677784Participant[quote=equalizer]This may have been posted elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating about pension spiking. TG has correctly stated that salaries and benefits of peace/corrections officers/fireman is tiny portion of budget, but it is wrong on principle (think Javert in Les Misérables) if there are massive budget problems and fair market value of comparable jobs, say nuclear workers or front line soldiers, is lower.
Not to say that most aren’t tremendously loyal servants like Glenn Allen, the 61 year old L.A. firefighter with 36 years on the job who tragically died putting out a fire last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/local/la-me-0219-firefighter-20110219
“1 Billion DROP Salary Scandal: L.A. Cops, Firefighters Allowed to Double-Dip Into City Funds, Collect Pensions 5 Years Early”
It would be great if everyone in comparable position could have a DROP program. Warning: watching the video may produce strong reactions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php%5B/quote%5D
Just want to point out that instead of focusing on the one doing the “double-dipping,” we should ask what the net cost/benefit is to the employer.
Employers like the DROP program because it costs the employer **LESS** than if they would have to hire a new person for the position. That’s because they do not have to make pension contributions for the retired/rehired person, whereas they would have to make these contributions for someone not in the DROP program.
Employers will often used a DROP program employee if there is a current or upcoming project in the works that requires the expertise of the retiring employee. Sometimes, they are actually in the process of eliminating a position, but need to finish some tasks or projects first, so would rather rehire someone temporarily (who is also very experienced and knowledgeable), so that they won’t have to incur the costs of hiring, and possibly re-training, a new person. They also save by not having to make the pension contributions.
Again, there is a lot of misinformation going around that is 100% based on envy. What we have to look at is the net cost/benefit to taxpayers, not what the employee is making, personally. BTW, there is a five-year max for this program, but most of the DROP employees I’ve known about (very few) only participate for a few months or maybe a year. Again, it’s usually done in order to complete a particular project or task. It’s not done as a way to make extra money.
March 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM #678389Participant[quote=equalizer]This may have been posted elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating about pension spiking. TG has correctly stated that salaries and benefits of peace/corrections officers/fireman is tiny portion of budget, but it is wrong on principle (think Javert in Les Misérables) if there are massive budget problems and fair market value of comparable jobs, say nuclear workers or front line soldiers, is lower.
Not to say that most aren’t tremendously loyal servants like Glenn Allen, the 61 year old L.A. firefighter with 36 years on the job who tragically died putting out a fire last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/local/la-me-0219-firefighter-20110219
“1 Billion DROP Salary Scandal: L.A. Cops, Firefighters Allowed to Double-Dip Into City Funds, Collect Pensions 5 Years Early”
It would be great if everyone in comparable position could have a DROP program. Warning: watching the video may produce strong reactions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php%5B/quote%5D
Just want to point out that instead of focusing on the one doing the “double-dipping,” we should ask what the net cost/benefit is to the employer.
Employers like the DROP program because it costs the employer **LESS** than if they would have to hire a new person for the position. That’s because they do not have to make pension contributions for the retired/rehired person, whereas they would have to make these contributions for someone not in the DROP program.
Employers will often used a DROP program employee if there is a current or upcoming project in the works that requires the expertise of the retiring employee. Sometimes, they are actually in the process of eliminating a position, but need to finish some tasks or projects first, so would rather rehire someone temporarily (who is also very experienced and knowledgeable), so that they won’t have to incur the costs of hiring, and possibly re-training, a new person. They also save by not having to make the pension contributions.
Again, there is a lot of misinformation going around that is 100% based on envy. What we have to look at is the net cost/benefit to taxpayers, not what the employee is making, personally. BTW, there is a five-year max for this program, but most of the DROP employees I’ve known about (very few) only participate for a few months or maybe a year. Again, it’s usually done in order to complete a particular project or task. It’s not done as a way to make extra money.
March 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM #678522Participant[quote=equalizer]This may have been posted elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating about pension spiking. TG has correctly stated that salaries and benefits of peace/corrections officers/fireman is tiny portion of budget, but it is wrong on principle (think Javert in Les Misérables) if there are massive budget problems and fair market value of comparable jobs, say nuclear workers or front line soldiers, is lower.
Not to say that most aren’t tremendously loyal servants like Glenn Allen, the 61 year old L.A. firefighter with 36 years on the job who tragically died putting out a fire last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/local/la-me-0219-firefighter-20110219
“1 Billion DROP Salary Scandal: L.A. Cops, Firefighters Allowed to Double-Dip Into City Funds, Collect Pensions 5 Years Early”
It would be great if everyone in comparable position could have a DROP program. Warning: watching the video may produce strong reactions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php%5B/quote%5D
Just want to point out that instead of focusing on the one doing the “double-dipping,” we should ask what the net cost/benefit is to the employer.
Employers like the DROP program because it costs the employer **LESS** than if they would have to hire a new person for the position. That’s because they do not have to make pension contributions for the retired/rehired person, whereas they would have to make these contributions for someone not in the DROP program.
Employers will often used a DROP program employee if there is a current or upcoming project in the works that requires the expertise of the retiring employee. Sometimes, they are actually in the process of eliminating a position, but need to finish some tasks or projects first, so would rather rehire someone temporarily (who is also very experienced and knowledgeable), so that they won’t have to incur the costs of hiring, and possibly re-training, a new person. They also save by not having to make the pension contributions.
Again, there is a lot of misinformation going around that is 100% based on envy. What we have to look at is the net cost/benefit to taxpayers, not what the employee is making, personally. BTW, there is a five-year max for this program, but most of the DROP employees I’ve known about (very few) only participate for a few months or maybe a year. Again, it’s usually done in order to complete a particular project or task. It’s not done as a way to make extra money.
March 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM #678865Participant[quote=equalizer]This may have been posted elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating about pension spiking. TG has correctly stated that salaries and benefits of peace/corrections officers/fireman is tiny portion of budget, but it is wrong on principle (think Javert in Les Misérables) if there are massive budget problems and fair market value of comparable jobs, say nuclear workers or front line soldiers, is lower.
Not to say that most aren’t tremendously loyal servants like Glenn Allen, the 61 year old L.A. firefighter with 36 years on the job who tragically died putting out a fire last month.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/19/local/la-me-0219-firefighter-20110219
“1 Billion DROP Salary Scandal: L.A. Cops, Firefighters Allowed to Double-Dip Into City Funds, Collect Pensions 5 Years Early”
It would be great if everyone in comparable position could have a DROP program. Warning: watching the video may produce strong reactions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php%5B/quote%5D
Just want to point out that instead of focusing on the one doing the “double-dipping,” we should ask what the net cost/benefit is to the employer.
Employers like the DROP program because it costs the employer **LESS** than if they would have to hire a new person for the position. That’s because they do not have to make pension contributions for the retired/rehired person, whereas they would have to make these contributions for someone not in the DROP program.
Employers will often used a DROP program employee if there is a current or upcoming project in the works that requires the expertise of the retiring employee. Sometimes, they are actually in the process of eliminating a position, but need to finish some tasks or projects first, so would rather rehire someone temporarily (who is also very experienced and knowledgeable), so that they won’t have to incur the costs of hiring, and possibly re-training, a new person. They also save by not having to make the pension contributions.
Again, there is a lot of misinformation going around that is 100% based on envy. What we have to look at is the net cost/benefit to taxpayers, not what the employee is making, personally. BTW, there is a five-year max for this program, but most of the DROP employees I’ve known about (very few) only participate for a few months or maybe a year. Again, it’s usually done in order to complete a particular project or task. It’s not done as a way to make extra money.
March 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM #677736Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantCAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…
Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.
What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.
I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.
March 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM #677789ParticipantCAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…
Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.
What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.
I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.
March 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM #678394ParticipantCAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…
Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.
What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.
I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.
March 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM #678527ParticipantCAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…
Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.
What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.
I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.
March 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM #678870ParticipantCAR: Well… If you’re going to start bringing facts and stuff into this…
Kidding aside, I will certainly concede that you have plenty of evidence. However, that said, there is no debate that we’re looking at significant budget deficits (and, no, I’m not laying this solely at the feet of the unions), as well as looming and massive shortfalls in the state pension program. These unfunded liabilities absolutely dwarf the state’s ability to pay, and will have material consequences (i.e. they will crowd out essential services as they grow larger over time).
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? Morever, it also appears that organizations like CalPERS made overly rosy assumptions regarding investment returns and that cities and municipalities spent to their level of revenue during the boom times, leaving us utterly unprepared for the bust that followed.
What to do? From an accounting perspective, we’re essentially insolvent as a state, and have been using accounting gimmickry, financial sleight-of-hand, and outright bullshit to cover up the fact that we can’t meet our obligations. California’s bond rating amply illustrates what investors truly think of us, and I would imagine its even worse at the local level. Simply put, we can’t pay our current bulls, we’re even worse off when considering the bills in the near term (next 2 to 5 years), and we’re totally screwed when it comes to meeting future obligations, especially pension and long-term benefits guarantees.
I’m not saying I have an answer, because I don’t, but I think tying spending to REALISTIC revenue targets is a start, and minimizing our debt load (especially as it relates to all of those friggin’ bond issues) is the next step.
March 16, 2011 at 10:35 PM #677741jstoesz
ParticipantAllan…just claw back the money from the banks…that is the solution right? Get it from the ones responsible (the banksters). No need to restructure state priorities, because they are a monument of piety.
March 16, 2011 at 10:35 PM #677793ParticipantAllan…just claw back the money from the banks…that is the solution right? Get it from the ones responsible (the banksters). No need to restructure state priorities, because they are a monument of piety.
March 16, 2011 at 10:35 PM #678399ParticipantAllan…just claw back the money from the banks…that is the solution right? Get it from the ones responsible (the banksters). No need to restructure state priorities, because they are a monument of piety.
March 16, 2011 at 10:35 PM #678532ParticipantAllan…just claw back the money from the banks…that is the solution right? Get it from the ones responsible (the banksters). No need to restructure state priorities, because they are a monument of piety.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.